[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rice v. Batchelor [2001] UKEAT 576_01_1510 (15 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/576_01_1510.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 576_01_1510, [2001] UKEAT 576_1_1510

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant


 


JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

1. This is an appeal by Mr Ian Rice against the refusal of an Employment Tribunal at Exeter to provide Full Reasons for a Decision promulgated on 10 October 2000 with Summary Reasons only. The Appellant has not appeared today to pursue his appeal but we are nevertheless going to deal with it on the merits, on the basis of the documentation.
2. The Appellant had requested Extended Reasons for the Decision by a letter to the Employment Tribunal, apparently dated 24 January 2001 but received by them on 29 January, being eighty nine days after the expiry of the twenty one days which are allowed by Regulation 10(4)(c)(ii) of the 1993 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations Schedule 1 for such a request to be made. The reason given in the letter for the late request for full reasons was:

"…..that when I appealed initially I sent the reasons in I was unaware the extended reasons were also required."

3. The full history of the events which resulted in the present hearing is as follows. By an Originating Application presented to the Tribunal on 25 April 2000, the present Respondent complained of non-payment of wages and absence of wage slips. No Notice of Appearance was presented in time by the Appellant and a date was fixed for the hearing. Prior to the hearing date the Appellant wrote on 28 May 2000 to the Employment Tribunal setting out his version of the events which had given rise to the Originating Application and the Employment Tribunal treated this as a Notice of Appearance which they allowed to be presented out of time.
4. The Appellant then expanded on the factual background to his position by a further letter to the Employment Tribunal dated 27 June but which was only received by the Employment Tribunal on 10 July 2000, the date of the hearing. The Appellant did not attend the hearing on 10 July, but the Respondent did attend and was represented. The Employment Tribunal adjourned the hearing and gave permission to the Respondent to amend the claim to one of:

"redundancy/unfair dismissal".

The claim was so amended. No amended Notice of Appearance was entered by the Appellant and the matter was heard on 27 September 2000 when, once again, the Appellant did not attend the hearing.

5. The claim was resolved in favour of the present Respondent, who had been present and represented, and the Appellant was ordered to pay compensation for unfair dismissal and for unlawful deduction from wages.
6. As I mentioned earlier, the Appellant then appealed against the Decision by a Notice of Appeal which he lodged on 24 November 2000 at this Appeal Tribunal, together with the Decision and Summary Reasons. This Appeal Tribunal then wrote to him on 1 December, referring to the need for Extended Reasons to accompany a Notice of Appeal and drawing attention to the relevant time limits.
7. Nothing further having been heard from the Appellant, the Registrar of this Appeal Tribunal then made an Order on 4 January 2001 which was, in part, in the following terms:

"AND UPON the Appellant having been informed by letter dated the 1^st day of December 2000 that there is no jurisdiction to hear an appeal solely in respect of Summary Reasons.

IT IS ORDERED that unless written confirmation is received within 7 days of the seal date of this order than an application has been made to the Employment Tribunal for the Extended Reasons the matter will be referred to the Registrar for determination."

8. A further Order was then made by the Registrar on 22 January 2001, striking out the Notice of Appeal, nothing further having been heard from the Appellant. The letter written by the Appellant to the Employment Tribunal asking for Extended Reasons was therefore dated two days after, and received by the Employment Tribunal seven days after, the making of the Order striking out the Notice of Appeal.
9. In response to the request for Extended Reasons, the Employment Tribunal wrote to the Appellant on 1 February 2001 in the following terms.

"Thank you for your letter dated 24/01/2001.

This has been referred to a chairman of the Employment Tribunals Mr O R Harper.

The chairman directs that your application for extended reasons be refused.

Your application is out of time. Your Notice of Appeal before the Employment Appeal Tribunal was struck out two days before you wrote your letter to us. A copy of the EAT notice is enclosed for your information."

10. The Appellant then lodged the Notice of Appeal with which we are now concerned. It was dated 7 March 2001 and was apparently received at this Appeal Tribunal on 21 March. The time limit for appealing was, we are satisfied, under the EAT Rules 1993 forty two days from the date when the notification of refusal of Extended Reasons was sent to the Appellant; that is the time expired on 15 March 2001. The Notice of Appeal was accompanied by no explanation of the delay, nor are any circumstances referred to, to justify any application for an extension of time for appealing. No such application was, in any event, made.
11. The grounds of appeal are, as given in the Notice of Appeal:

"The refusal of the local office to supply full Extended Reasons for refusal.",

and then two further bases which go to the substantive Decision of the Tribunal on the Originating Application.

12. On receipt of the Notice of Appeal, this Appeal Tribunal wrote to the Appellant asking for Further and Better Particulars of the Notice within fourteen days, that is to say by 9 April. No such particulars having been received by that date, this Appeal Tribunal wrote to the Appellant again, on 10 April, as follows, referring to their earlier letter, saying:

"Your Further and Better Particulars of the Notice of Appeal (as well as your actual Notice of Appeal) should have been lodged with this Tribunal by no later than 9^th April 2001 but have not yet been received.

Please lodge your Further and Better Particulars of the Notice of Appeal …….by 18^th April 2001, together with an application for an extension of time in which to do so. Without these documents, it is impossible for the EAT to progress your Appeal."

13. The Appellant finally responded by a letter dated 18 April in the following terms:

"Dear Sir or Madam,

I enclose another (3^rd copy) of the Appeal for Decision of Employment Tribunal which I hope you can now action.

This matter has been going on since May 2000, and I have indicated my reasons yet again because people appear not to understand that Mr Batchelor resigned from my employment, after Disciplinary action which was not resolved and his subsequent suspension.

If this is not acceptable, I need to sit down and talk the way through all the events - not present me with a Bill and another question unanswered was, why was he allowed to alter his original application July 10^th.

If this case does not reach a satisfactory conclusion, I shall complain about the Employment Tribunal as I feel the Chairman has it in for me as an employer/employee.

A frustrated person.

Yours faithfully"

And he signed it.

14. We therefore have to decide whether the Appellant has satisfied us that it is reasonably arguable that the Employment Tribunal made an error of law in its decision to refuse to give Extended Reasons for the original Decision, and whether it is reasonably arguable that an appeal against such decision should be allowed at this Appeal Tribunal, out of time.
15. On neither basis are we so satisfied. The Appellant has been extremely dilatory throughout. He failed to apply for Extended Reasons until three and a half months had passed since the Decision being appealed was promulgated, and well over seven weeks after this Appeal Tribunal had alerted him to the need for Extended Reasons to accompany any Notice of Appeal. He then failed to ensure his appeal against the refusal was received by this Appeal Tribunal within the forty two day period allowed for such appeals. No explanation for that default accompanied the Notice of Appeal, and no application has ever been made by him for an extension of time. In all these circumstances, the appeal cannot succeed and it is dismissed.